Christian pacifism is the theological as well as ethical moral value that violence is not acceptable. This is a teaching and an example learnt from Jesus who himself did practice pacifism, therefore, those who claim to profess the Christian faith is obligated to follow His steps. This has also been a crusade done by individuals likes Martin Luther King Jnr. and Ammon Hennacy. The position is not acceptable by many especially by today’s Christian critics who claim it is full of naïve positivism. Those who use force and do not adhere to the pacifism are at times regarded to as the anarchists.
Over time, the discussion on pacifism has been a topic to individuals and scholars of theology. There are differing deductions that have come about as a result of this moral and religious approach of not using force at all. Don Murphy, for example, argues that pacifism means differently to different individuals.
Some believe believe in the dictionary definition that, Pacifism is aimed settling disputes and averting war. To others, it means the demonstrations trying to stop social evils while to others it totally means nothing as they tend to ignore the whole issue. It may be argued that those who ignore the analogy fear what the outcome would be if they critically analyzed it. One thing that is for sure is that it is a very sensitive and critical issue rooted on the faith life of the Disciples of Christ (Don Murphy, 1986).
In as much as pacifism, in Christianity, is not so much widely spread, its inception as a concept to be adopted is deeply rooted in the Scriptures. In as much as in the Old Testament, there was massive retaliation and war; it is important to note that it was not the call of God but was mostly a human making. For Example, David was forbidden by God from building God’s house thanks to his massive bloodshed in the many wars that he fought. (1 Chronicles 22:8).
Pacifism in as much as so many may try to justify its absolute adoption from the point of Jesus’ words, "If a person slaps you on your right cheek, give them your left too"(Matthew 5:39), does not mean that one ought not to defend themselves. It was meant to discourage those who believe in doing bad for bad always and also those who want to abuse the judicial phrase, “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” to justify personal retaliation and vengeance.( Casey Carmical, 2012).
David A. Hoekema in an article in the Christian Century, October 22, 1986 argues that pacifism is based in an optimistic humanism. He goes on to argue that pacifism links the ideal of avoiding violence to 5the innate and inherent goodness of human nature. It is an assumption that does not hold any strength since humans are known to otherwise hostile and not to solve disputes amicably. Pacifism is also a form of interiority and surrender to the aggressor and, therefore, it cannot be moral, heading to the forces of evil.
The big question that still stands, is whether pacifism is practical in the current society? Does being a pacifist mean that one becomes tied in bondage? Should a human being justify allowing moral evils such as slavery on the basis of being no confrontational? These are questions that one is left reflecting on with no concrete answers.
One could argue that pacifism is a relative concept that a human being cannot base their conduct on. In that it does not mean that a pacifist cannot result into confrontation if needs be. One just has to use their moral understanding to know when and how much force is required to be applied, so, as to avoid the occurrence of another moral evil. Even Jesus Christ Himself at one point resulted into using force on the people he found defiling His Father’s house. He literally wiped and threw them from the Temple. It is, therefore, prudent and viable to argue that, in practice of pacifism, human reason has to be put into play.
References
Orr, Edgar W. (1958). Christian-pacifism. London: C.W. Daniel Co.
